Ted Mink v. State of Arizona
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Ted Mink appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations and state law claims in connection with the impoundment of his car based on a clerical error. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050 (9th Cir.2002) (sovereign immunity); Hunt v. Dental Deft, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.1989) (summary judgment). We affirm.
Contrary to Mink’s contentions, the district court had jurisdiction over his state law claims because those claims arose out of the same case or controversy as Mink’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (providing that “district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy”).
The district court properly denied Mink’s untimely motion to remand the case to state court. See Vasquez v. N. Cnty. Transit Dist., 292 F.3d 1049 , 1060 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002) (motion to remand on basis of procedural defect must be made within 30 days, or defects are deemed waived).